Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nazir

It might be thought [further] that he is not to defile himself for the spinal column, or the skull, or the greater part of the bodily frame or the majority of the bones of the other [relations],1 but I will tell you [why that is not so]. His sister is distinguished [from strangers] by the fact that her body depends on him [for its burial], and he is required to defile himself for the spinal column, or the skull, or the greater part of its bodily frame or the majority [of its bones], and so in all cases where the body depends on him [for burial], he is required to defile himself, for its spinal column, or its skull, or the greater part of its bodily frame, or the majority [of its bones]. [This contradicts Rab, does it not?]2 — The author of this [Baraitha] too is R. Judah, whereas Rab agrees with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: The story is told that the father of R. Isaac [the priest]3 died at Ginzak4 and he was informed three years later. He went and asked R. Joshua b. Elisha and the four Elders with him,5 and they replied: For his father6 when he is whole, but not when he is defective.7

MISHNAH. THREE THINGS ARE FORBIDDEN THE NAZIRITE, VIZ: — DEFILEMENT, POLLING AND PRODUCTS OF THE VINE. DEFILEMENT AND POLLING HAVE A STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY PRODUCTS OF THE VINE IN THAT DEFILEMENT AND POLLING RENDER VOID [THE PREVIOUS PERIOD], WHEREAS [PARTAKING OF] PRODUCTS OF THE VINE DOES NOT DO SO. PRODUCTS OF THE VINE HAVE A STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY DEFILEMENT OR POLLING IN THAT PRODUCTS OF THE VINE PERMIT OF NO EXCEPTION FROM THE GENERAL PROHIBITION,8 WHEREAS DEFILEMENT AND POLLING ARE ALLOWED AS EXCEPTION FROM THE GENERAL PROHIBITION IN THE CASE WHERE POLLING IS A RELIGIOUS DUTY,9 OR WHERE THERE IS A METH MIZWAH.10 DEFILEMENT ALSO HAS A STRINGENCY NOT POSSESSED BY POLLING, IN THAT DEFILEMENT RENDERS VOID THE WHOLE OF THE PRECEDING PERIOD,11 AND ENTAILS THE OFFERING OF A SACRIFICE, WHEREAS POLLING RENDERS VOID ONLY THIRTY DAYS AND DOES NOT ENTAIL A SACRIFICE.

GEMARA. Why should not defilement also permit of no exception from the general prohibition, in virtue of the following a fortiori argument from wine? Seeing that wine which does not render void [the previous period] permits of no exception from the general prohibition, then defilement which does render void [the previous period] should certainly not permit of an exception from the general prohibition? — The text says, Nor defile himself for his father or for his mother,12 signifying that it is only for his father or for his mother that he is forbidden to defile himself, whereas he is required to defile himself for a meth mizwah.

Then why should not wine permit of an exception from the general prohibition because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement, which renders void [the previous period], permits of an exception from the general prohibition, then wine which does not render void [the previous period] should certainly permit of an exception from the general prohibition? — The verse says, He shall abstain from wine and strong drink,13 thus forbidding wine that should be drunk as a ritual obligation14 as well as wine that he might drink from choice.15

Then why should not wine render void the whole [of the previous period] because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement which permits of an exception from the general prohibition renders void [the previous period], then wine which permits of no exception should certainly render void [the preceding period]? — The verse says, But the former days shall be void because his consecration was defiled,16 signifying that defilement renders void, but wine does not do so.

Why should not polling render void the whole [of the previous period]17 because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement? Seeing that defilement, the agent of which is not subjected to the same [penalty] as the patient,18 renders void the whole [of the previous period], then polling where the agent is subject to the same penalty as the patient,19 should certainly render void the whole [of the preceding period]? — The verse says, But the former days shall be void because his consecration was defiled20 signifying that defilement renders void the whole [of the preceding period], but polling does not do so.

Why should not the agent be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient in the case of defilement, because of the following a fortiori argument from polling? Seeing that in the case of polling, where only thirty days are rendered void, the agent is subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, then in the case of defilement where the whole [of the preceding period] is rendered void, the agent should certainly be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient? The verse says, And he defile his consecrated head21 signifying [that the penalty is only] for him who defiles his [own] consecrated head.

Then polling should not result in the agent being subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, because of the following a fortiori argument from defilement. Seeing that in the case of defilement, where the whole [of the preceding period] is rendered void, the agent is not subject to the same [penalty] as the patient, then in the case of polling, which does not render void the whole [of the preceding period], the agent should certainly not be subject to the same [penalty] as the patient? — The verse says, There shall no razor come upon his head,22 and can be read as signifying that he shall not make it come himself, and that no other shall make it come either.23

Polling should not permit of an exception from the general prohibition because of the following a fortiori argument front wine. Seeing that wine which does not render void [the preceding period] permits of no exception from the general prohibition, then polling which does render void [the preceding period] should certainly permit of no exception? — The All-Merciful mentions both his hair and his beard.24

Then polling should not render void any [of the preceding period] because of the following a fortiori argument from wine. Seeing that wine which permits of no exception does not render void, polling which does permit of an exception from the general prohibition should certainly not render void? — We require a sufficient growth of hair and this would be lacking.25

Why should not wine render void thirty days because of the following a fortiori argument from polling? Seeing that polling, which permits of an exception from the general prohibition, renders void [thirty days], then wine which permits of no exception from the general prohibition should certainly do so? — Is not the only reason26 because there must be a sufficient growth of hair? After wine his hair is still intact.27

Mentioned in the verse before the one dealing with his spinster sister.

For according to this Baraitha, too, he is permitted to defile himself for a part of the body, in contradiction to the statement made by R. Hisda in the name of Rab. The Baraithas of R. Eliezer b. Jacob were highly esteemed and that is why this one is quoted, although the reply may seem obvious. It would now be necessary to show some other Baraitha agrees with Rab.

Whether he might personally arrange his removal to the family sepulchre (Rashi).

Lev. XXI, 2.

After three years he would undoubtedly be defective. Thus this Baraitha agrees with Rab.

I.e. under no circumstances is a nazirite ever permitted to drink wine.

As when a nazirite becomes a leper and then recovers from the disease.

A corpse without relatives to provide for its burial must be buried by the first person who can do so, be he nazirite, priest, or even High Priest; cf. infra 47a seq.

However long it should be.

Lev. XXI, 11; although referring to the High Priest, the same applies to the nazirite.

Num. VI, 3; wine is mentioned specifically to tell us that it is to permit of no exception.

E.g. if the person had sworn to drink wine before becoming a nazirite, he must not do so not with standing.

Cf. supra 3b.

Num. VI. 12.

Instead of only thirty days.

There is no penalty attached to one who defiles a nazirite.

Both are scourged, v. infra.

Num. VI, 12.

Ibid. 9.

Ibid. 5.

The verb is written defectively and may therefore be read as an active mood instead of a passive one. There is now no agent mentioned who 'causes it to come upon his head' and so whoever uses the razor on the nazirite is also a transgressor. [This follows Rashi's reading. Asheri seems to have had a smoother text which simply took 'razor' as subject of 'come upon his head', thus making no distinction as to who passes the razor over the nazirite.]

In Lev. XIV, 9, whence is derived that the leprous nazirite must poll, v. supra 41a.

After he had once polled illegitimately. Hence he must render thirty days void, before terminating the naziriteship.

MISHNAH. HOW WAS [THE RITE OF] THE POLLING AFTER DEFILEMENT [PERFORMED]? HE WOULD BE SPRINKLED ON THE THIRD AND SEVENTH DAYS,1 POLL ON THE SEVENTH DAY AND BRING HIS SACRIFICES ON THE EIGHTH DAY. IF HE POLLED ON THE EIGHTH DAY,2 HE WOULD BRING HIS SACRIFICES ON THAT SAME DAY. THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. AKIBA. R. TARFON ASKED HIM: WHAT DIFFERENCE IS THERE BETWEEN THIS [NAZIRITE] AND A LEPER?3 HE REPLIED: THE PURIFICATION OF THIS MAN DEPENDS ON THE [LAPSE OF SEVEN] DAYS ONLY], WHEREAS THE PURIFICATION OF A LEPER DEPENDS [ALSO] ON HIS POLLING,4 AND HE CANNOT BRING A SACRIFICE UNLESS THE SUN HAS SET UPON HIM [AFTER HIS RITUAL BATH].5

GEMARA. Did [R. Tarfon] accept this answer or not?6 — Come and hear: Hillel7 learnt: If [the nazirite] polled on the eighth day, he was to bring his sacrifices on the ninth. Now if you assume that he accepted the answer, should he not bring his sacrifices on the eighth day?8 — Raba said: This creates no difficulty,9 for the one case10 assumes that he bathed on the seventh day, and the other11 that he did not bathe on the seventh day.12

Abaye said: I came across the colleagues of R. Nathan b. Hoshaia, seated [at their studies] and reporting the following [teaching]. [Scripture says,] And come before the Lord unto the door of the tent of meeting and give them unto the priest.13 When is he to come?14 If he has bathed and waited until after sunset he may [come], but if he has not bathed and waited until after sunset he may not do so. Thus we see [they said] that [this Tanna] is of the opinion that a tebul yom15 after gonorrhoea is still like a sufferer from gonorrhoea.16 I [Abaye] then said to them: If that is so,17 then in the case of a defiled nazirite where we find the verse, He shall bring too turtle doves … to the priest to the door of the tent of meeting18 [we should also say] that he is to come only if he has bathed and waited until after sunset.19

After defilement, with water mixed with ashes of the red heifer, v. Num. XIX.

Instead of the seventh.

A leper who polled on the eighth day instead of the seventh was required to wait until the ninth day before offering his sacrifices. [V. Sifra on Lev. XIV, 9, where this, R. Akiba's view in the case of the leper is stated. According to some texts, however, R. Akiba is of the opinion that the leper could bring his sacrifices on the same day (v. Malbim, a.l.). On this reading, adopted by Rashi, Maimonides, and others, the Mishnah is to be interpreted thus: SAID R. TARFON TO HIM, IF SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NAZIRITE AND THE LEPER (SINCE BOTH ARE IN THIS RESPECT ALIKE). HE REPLIED, (THEY DIFFER IN THIS: ) THE PURIFICATION OF THIS MAN DEPENDS ON THE LAPSE OF SEVEN DAYS (ONLY) — i.e., he becomes clean on the seventh day even if he did not poll — WHEREAS THE PURIFICATION OF A LEPER DEPENDS ALSO ON HIS POLLING (v. n. 6); AND (THERE IS A FURTHER DIFFERENCE IN THAT A NAZIRITE) DOES NOT BRING A SACRIFICE UNLESS THE SUN HAS SET UPON HIM (AFTER HIS RITUAL BATH) — i.e., whenever he immersed whether on the seventh or eighth day, he brings the sacrifice only on the following day, whereas the leper who immersed on the eighth day may bring the sacrifice on the same day, since he has been declared by the Torah clean as a result of the first polling and immersion, v. Lev. XIV, 8.]

He does not take a ritual bath until after the polling (Lev. XIV, 8); the nazirite took it before.

Until evening he is a tebul yom (v. Glos.) and so cannot bring sacrifices.

I.e., does he now agree with R. Akiba, or does he still contend that the nazirite who polls on the eighth day must wait like the leper until the ninth before bringing his sacrifices?

The Amora of that name; not the Patriarch Hillel.

So that unless R. Tarfon still disagreed with R. Akiba there would be no author for this Baraitha of Hillel.

Even if R. Tarfon agreed with R. Akiba.

That of the Mishnah which permits him to offer his sacrifices on the eighth day.

The Baraitha which compels him to wait until the ninth day.

And could not bring sacrifices before sunset on the day he bathed (the eighth day), and so had to wait until the ninth day.

Lev. XV, 24. Referring to the sacrifices of one who has recovered from an unclean issue. V. 13 requires him to bathe on the seventh day after the cessation of the issue.

And so could not enter the Temple mount to give his sacrifices to the priest. Further, on the Eve of Passover it would be forbidden to slaughter a Paschal lamb on his behalf and he would have to wait until the second Passover (v. Ker. 10a).

I.e., if the reason just given is in fact the Tanna's reason for requiring him to wait until after sunset.

Num. VI, 10. In this context, too, the previous verse requires him to bathe first.

And so a nazirite after defilement should also be forbidden to enter the temple mount in just the same way as one who has recovered from gonorrhoea is forbidden to do so.